Friday, August 15, 2003
Elephants and the University: holding on by the skin of their tusks
The unspoken backdrop of Brooks' piece (see my previous post for a distillation) is the national debate over diversity in universities. It's quite obvious that when he writes that "it is not useful to try to hammer diversity into every neighborhood and institution in the United States," he has universities in mind, or at least at the top of the list. This seems fair to me. It's what Brooks explicitly says about universities that worries me, even if I don't entirely disagree.
Brooks lashes out at the homogeneity of university faculties:
"It's striking that the institutions that talk the most about diversity often practice it the least...But elite universities are amazingly undiverse in their values, politics, and mores. Professors in particular are drawn from a rather narrow segment of the population. If faculties reflected the general population, 32 percent of professors would be registered Democrats and 31 percent would be registered Republicans. Forty percent would be evangelical Christians. But a recent study of several universities by the conservative Center for the Study of Popular Culture and the American Enterprise Institute found that roughly 90 percent of those professors in the arts and sciences who had registered with a political party had registered Democratic."
Ever since the war in Iraq, conservative pundits and think tanks have been noting the obvious: University humanities departments are overwhelmingly far-left-wing. This is clearly the case. Though english departments, largely postmodern and obsessively relativistic, are the most notorious left-wingers, departments like philosophy which largly shun post modern thought, are overwhelmingly left wing as well. In Cornell, for example, there was not a single philosopher who was pro-war. Without implying that an anti-war stance necessarily entails a far-leftwing stance, the gross inbalance gets the point across.
This disproportion indeed raises many sociological questions about who's going to grad school and getting first-rate jobs in academia. I suspect that the first is the more decisive factor. While undergrad classes are politically diverse, grad classes are already far more homogenous. and i suspect that the situation has less to do with active discrimination than with a self-perpetuating reputation universities have for being left wing, which Brooks only helps to perpetuate. For an interesting hypothesis on how that reputation first began, see Robert Nozick's Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism?
Gross disproportion notwithstanding, it isnt true that being left wing means teaching left wing, particularly in departments like philosophy which demands rigor as opposed to flippant asides. While many of my philosophy teachers had antiwar propaganda hanging on their doors (itself, i think, an abuse of authority, unless you explicitly link your political stance to philosophical argument) I can think of only one instance when a teacher brought in his own political opinions in a lecture to drive home a point. Even if departments like political science draw less clear distinctions between teaching and proselytizing, surely these problems are fixable, especially if enough pressure is put on university administrations. Max Weber spilled much ink stressing that we must choose whether a university is supposed to be an institution dedicated to molding human beings to a specific shape (and in universities where "dogmatic" is the greatest possible insult this is hardly an option), or one dedicated to imbuing what he called "intellectual virtue," ie critical thinking, a tradition of asking certain large questions and reading certain texts , yada yada yada (yes Jerry, I just yada yadad intellectual virtue).
And now for Brooks' denouement:
"Any registered Republican who contemplates a career in academia these days is both a hero and a fool. So, in a semi-self-selective pattern, brainy people with generally liberal social mores flow to academia, and brainy people with generally conservative mores flow elsewhere."
In this paragraph Brooks goes even one step further--in my opinion, one step too far. He claims that the academy is simply not a place for conservatives anymore. While he shies from the most extreme position--advising conservatives to stop sending their children to liberal infested universities--that position is only a logical skip away. THere are no real substitutes for universities, not even think tanks. This summer, I worked at one of the most influential conservative think tanks in DC. Quite simply, there is a very thin line separating ideology from scholarship at these places, even more so than at the universities. and in DC, being politically "influential" is prized more highly than producing quality work. Best way to be "influential"? kiss the right ass and be even more partisan than the next guy...
Bottom line?
Conservatives must continue to ask why their kind are not to be found in large quantities at universities. They must continue to put pressure on administrations to censure professors who think theyre prophets. But they can't afford to formally separate from the one institution which professes a real commitment to objective higher learning. Just because you have a president who hasnt read the classics...
The unspoken backdrop of Brooks' piece (see my previous post for a distillation) is the national debate over diversity in universities. It's quite obvious that when he writes that "it is not useful to try to hammer diversity into every neighborhood and institution in the United States," he has universities in mind, or at least at the top of the list. This seems fair to me. It's what Brooks explicitly says about universities that worries me, even if I don't entirely disagree.
Brooks lashes out at the homogeneity of university faculties:
"It's striking that the institutions that talk the most about diversity often practice it the least...But elite universities are amazingly undiverse in their values, politics, and mores. Professors in particular are drawn from a rather narrow segment of the population. If faculties reflected the general population, 32 percent of professors would be registered Democrats and 31 percent would be registered Republicans. Forty percent would be evangelical Christians. But a recent study of several universities by the conservative Center for the Study of Popular Culture and the American Enterprise Institute found that roughly 90 percent of those professors in the arts and sciences who had registered with a political party had registered Democratic."
Ever since the war in Iraq, conservative pundits and think tanks have been noting the obvious: University humanities departments are overwhelmingly far-left-wing. This is clearly the case. Though english departments, largely postmodern and obsessively relativistic, are the most notorious left-wingers, departments like philosophy which largly shun post modern thought, are overwhelmingly left wing as well. In Cornell, for example, there was not a single philosopher who was pro-war. Without implying that an anti-war stance necessarily entails a far-leftwing stance, the gross inbalance gets the point across.
This disproportion indeed raises many sociological questions about who's going to grad school and getting first-rate jobs in academia. I suspect that the first is the more decisive factor. While undergrad classes are politically diverse, grad classes are already far more homogenous. and i suspect that the situation has less to do with active discrimination than with a self-perpetuating reputation universities have for being left wing, which Brooks only helps to perpetuate. For an interesting hypothesis on how that reputation first began, see Robert Nozick's Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism?
Gross disproportion notwithstanding, it isnt true that being left wing means teaching left wing, particularly in departments like philosophy which demands rigor as opposed to flippant asides. While many of my philosophy teachers had antiwar propaganda hanging on their doors (itself, i think, an abuse of authority, unless you explicitly link your political stance to philosophical argument) I can think of only one instance when a teacher brought in his own political opinions in a lecture to drive home a point. Even if departments like political science draw less clear distinctions between teaching and proselytizing, surely these problems are fixable, especially if enough pressure is put on university administrations. Max Weber spilled much ink stressing that we must choose whether a university is supposed to be an institution dedicated to molding human beings to a specific shape (and in universities where "dogmatic" is the greatest possible insult this is hardly an option), or one dedicated to imbuing what he called "intellectual virtue," ie critical thinking, a tradition of asking certain large questions and reading certain texts , yada yada yada (yes Jerry, I just yada yadad intellectual virtue).
And now for Brooks' denouement:
"Any registered Republican who contemplates a career in academia these days is both a hero and a fool. So, in a semi-self-selective pattern, brainy people with generally liberal social mores flow to academia, and brainy people with generally conservative mores flow elsewhere."
In this paragraph Brooks goes even one step further--in my opinion, one step too far. He claims that the academy is simply not a place for conservatives anymore. While he shies from the most extreme position--advising conservatives to stop sending their children to liberal infested universities--that position is only a logical skip away. THere are no real substitutes for universities, not even think tanks. This summer, I worked at one of the most influential conservative think tanks in DC. Quite simply, there is a very thin line separating ideology from scholarship at these places, even more so than at the universities. and in DC, being politically "influential" is prized more highly than producing quality work. Best way to be "influential"? kiss the right ass and be even more partisan than the next guy...
Bottom line?
Conservatives must continue to ask why their kind are not to be found in large quantities at universities. They must continue to put pressure on administrations to censure professors who think theyre prophets. But they can't afford to formally separate from the one institution which professes a real commitment to objective higher learning. Just because you have a president who hasnt read the classics...
Kudos to Aarons Bible website
This is almost too unbelievable to be true, but check for yourself. I made a mistake typing in the ivyJews website - I wrote "ivyjews.blogpsot.com". Did a simple error message pop up? Nope. Rather, I was taken to this Christian Gosepl Site - which even has a special section on Jews, among 100 other things.
As a Jew, I still respect the Chrsitian faith, although I don't plan on joining it. However, religion aside, I have the utmost respect for their missionary persistance. Taking advantage of an incorrect spelling of our Blog - now that's going the extra mile for Jesus.
And just to pat ourselves on the back, we are such a groundbreaking and crucial voice for Jews that we merit to have Chrsitian groups preach to our (dyslexic) blog writers and viewers. I'm honored.
This is almost too unbelievable to be true, but check for yourself. I made a mistake typing in the ivyJews website - I wrote "ivyjews.blogpsot.com". Did a simple error message pop up? Nope. Rather, I was taken to this Christian Gosepl Site - which even has a special section on Jews, among 100 other things.
As a Jew, I still respect the Chrsitian faith, although I don't plan on joining it. However, religion aside, I have the utmost respect for their missionary persistance. Taking advantage of an incorrect spelling of our Blog - now that's going the extra mile for Jesus.
And just to pat ourselves on the back, we are such a groundbreaking and crucial voice for Jews that we merit to have Chrsitian groups preach to our (dyslexic) blog writers and viewers. I'm honored.
Brooks on Diversity
David Brooks' latest piece in the Atlantic Monthly, on the state of diversity in America, is a political essay dressed in sociological garb (usually Brooks does a better job in distinguishing between his two types of essays; his book on the new upper class, Bobos in Paradise, is a must-read for cons and libs alike).
Notwithstanding all our talk on the virtues of diversity, Brooks claims that "we don't really care about diversity all that much in America...Instead, what I have seen all around the country is people making strenuous efforts to group themselves with people who are basically like themselves."
Most of the piece deals with geographic segregation along racial, ethnic and cultural lines ("In the Washington, D.C., area Democratic lawyers tend to live in suburban Maryland, and Republican lawyers tend to live in suburban Virginia...Once Boulder, Colorado, became known as congenial to politically progressive mountain bikers, half the politically progressive mountain bikers in the country (it seems) moved there").
And lest you assume that self-imposed segregation is a result of economic disparity: "The number of middle-class and upper-middle-class African-American families is rising, but for whatever reasons—racism, psychological comfort—these families tend to congregate in predominantly black neighborhoods... "
Nor is the self-imposed segregation limited to geography:
"Some of us watch Fox News, while others listen to NPR. Some like David Letterman, and others—typically in less urban neighborhoods—like Jay Leno. Some go to charismatic churches; some go to mainstream churches. Americans tend more and more often to marry people with education levels similar to their own, and to befriend people with backgrounds similar to their own."
But before you throw a temper tantrum about all this cliquiness, know that "we are increasing our happiness by segmenting off so rigorously. We are finding places where we are comfortable and where we feel we can flourish."
What's the explanation? Brooks says it twice. Quite simply, "What we are looking at here is human nature [how Brooks square this claim with his suggestion that racism is a cause of segregation is shady; perhaps there are multiple causes, perhaps racism is part of human nature, or perhaps the racism term was just thrown in to make his piece seem bipartisan]. People want to be around others who are roughly like themselves. That's called community."
Accordingly: "I've come to think that it is not useful to try to hammer diversity into every neighborhood and institution in the United States. Sure, Augusta National should probably admit women...But human nature being what it is, most places and institutions are going to remain culturally homogeneous. "
And yet: we ought to diversify our lives, even if our institutions are out of reach. e.g: i) "It might also be a good idea to make national service a rite of passage for young people in this country: it would take them out of their narrow neighborhood segment and thrust them in with people unlike themselves." ii) "If you live in a coastal, socially liberal neighborhood, maybe you should take out a subscription to The Door, the evangelical humor magazine; or maybe you should visit Branson, Missouri. Maybe you should stop in at a megachurch."
All well said, if only a little trite. But why am I slightly annoyed? see my next post.
David Brooks' latest piece in the Atlantic Monthly, on the state of diversity in America, is a political essay dressed in sociological garb (usually Brooks does a better job in distinguishing between his two types of essays; his book on the new upper class, Bobos in Paradise, is a must-read for cons and libs alike).
Notwithstanding all our talk on the virtues of diversity, Brooks claims that "we don't really care about diversity all that much in America...Instead, what I have seen all around the country is people making strenuous efforts to group themselves with people who are basically like themselves."
Most of the piece deals with geographic segregation along racial, ethnic and cultural lines ("In the Washington, D.C., area Democratic lawyers tend to live in suburban Maryland, and Republican lawyers tend to live in suburban Virginia...Once Boulder, Colorado, became known as congenial to politically progressive mountain bikers, half the politically progressive mountain bikers in the country (it seems) moved there").
And lest you assume that self-imposed segregation is a result of economic disparity: "The number of middle-class and upper-middle-class African-American families is rising, but for whatever reasons—racism, psychological comfort—these families tend to congregate in predominantly black neighborhoods... "
Nor is the self-imposed segregation limited to geography:
"Some of us watch Fox News, while others listen to NPR. Some like David Letterman, and others—typically in less urban neighborhoods—like Jay Leno. Some go to charismatic churches; some go to mainstream churches. Americans tend more and more often to marry people with education levels similar to their own, and to befriend people with backgrounds similar to their own."
But before you throw a temper tantrum about all this cliquiness, know that "we are increasing our happiness by segmenting off so rigorously. We are finding places where we are comfortable and where we feel we can flourish."
What's the explanation? Brooks says it twice. Quite simply, "What we are looking at here is human nature [how Brooks square this claim with his suggestion that racism is a cause of segregation is shady; perhaps there are multiple causes, perhaps racism is part of human nature, or perhaps the racism term was just thrown in to make his piece seem bipartisan]. People want to be around others who are roughly like themselves. That's called community."
Accordingly: "I've come to think that it is not useful to try to hammer diversity into every neighborhood and institution in the United States. Sure, Augusta National should probably admit women...But human nature being what it is, most places and institutions are going to remain culturally homogeneous. "
And yet: we ought to diversify our lives, even if our institutions are out of reach. e.g: i) "It might also be a good idea to make national service a rite of passage for young people in this country: it would take them out of their narrow neighborhood segment and thrust them in with people unlike themselves." ii) "If you live in a coastal, socially liberal neighborhood, maybe you should take out a subscription to The Door, the evangelical humor magazine; or maybe you should visit Branson, Missouri. Maybe you should stop in at a megachurch."
All well said, if only a little trite. But why am I slightly annoyed? see my next post.
Marey Carey Cook will Work (it) for the Citizens
I surfed and finally found her campaign website.
To tell you the truth, I haven't had a chance to read what's on the site, since I'm at work, and the picture of the candidate on the site isn't exactly "tznius" (decent and modest). This isn't your mainstraim photo of a politician kissing babies. But close - the picture does conjure up images of babies suckling....
I surfed and finally found her campaign website.
To tell you the truth, I haven't had a chance to read what's on the site, since I'm at work, and the picture of the candidate on the site isn't exactly "tznius" (decent and modest). This isn't your mainstraim photo of a politician kissing babies. But close - the picture does conjure up images of babies suckling....
Who Caused the Blackout? (or, a prelude to a whole lot of Canada jokes)
Though the vulnerability of the nation's electricity grids has long been noted,
"The cause of yesterday's failure, which spanned from New York and eastern Canada as far as Cleveland and Detroit, was still under investigation. Authorities think the problem resulted from an overload..." of visitors at ivyJews, a distinctive voice on matters political, philosophical, sexual, and rabbinical.
Though the vulnerability of the nation's electricity grids has long been noted,
"The cause of yesterday's failure, which spanned from New York and eastern Canada as far as Cleveland and Detroit, was still under investigation. Authorities think the problem resulted from an overload..." of visitors at ivyJews, a distinctive voice on matters political, philosophical, sexual, and rabbinical.
Thursday, August 14, 2003
Columbia Jewish Community in the News
Following Gil Perl's controversial pamphlet condemning the lifestyles led by Modern Orthodox Jews on secular college campuses, The Jewish Week published an article last week with reports about the opinions of two leaders of Jewish Life at Columbia, Tamar Kaplan-Marans, head of Halakha and Modernity, and Becca Israel, head of Yavneh, the 480-student Orthodox group on campus.
You can find the article here.
Following Gil Perl's controversial pamphlet condemning the lifestyles led by Modern Orthodox Jews on secular college campuses, The Jewish Week published an article last week with reports about the opinions of two leaders of Jewish Life at Columbia, Tamar Kaplan-Marans, head of Halakha and Modernity, and Becca Israel, head of Yavneh, the 480-student Orthodox group on campus.
You can find the article here.
California Dreamers
Here are some of the choiciest of the 135 candidates in the Cali election:
Warren Farrell, fathers' issues author, San Diego
This is from his website: "Most campuses are turning women's studies into gender studies, but in reality, "gender" still excludes men. If you are with a college or university, the best way to finance me speaking is via the Student Activities Association. Inquire as to the number of feminist speakers they have invited. Then suggest me as a balance, but also point out that I am female-positive as well. It helps them to know that I am the only man in the US ever elected three times to the Board of Directors of the National Organization for Women (NOW) in New York City."
Whoa! Female-positive and a great self-promoter.
Larry Flynt, publisher, Los Angeles
Ah yes, Larry the average-Joe publisher. Enriching our culture, and maintaining male literacy. Hey, he never said to skip the articles. It's like when a newspaper calls a Hamas terrorist mastermind a spritual leader (Lhavdil).
James Henry Green, firefighter-paramedic-nurse, San Francisco
Obviously, he never saw Meet the Parents. Male nurses like Green and Greg Gaylord Fokker do not get much respect. Not that there is anything wrong with being a male nurse.
Bruce Martin Margolin, marijuana legislation attorney, Los Angeles
Does he put that on his resume?
David Laughing Horse Robinson, tribal chairman, Kern
This guy will get name recognition.
William S. Chambers, railroad switchman/brakeman, Placer
He will get California back on track. Horrible pun, I'm sorry. But in all seriousness, I totally respect this guy. It's about time that politics went back into the hands of the average blue-collar workers, like in the days of our founding fathers...who all had huge manors and estates and plantations and tons of slaves.
Michael Jackson, satellite project manager, Los Angeles
Again, name recognition. But wasn't there a Simpsons episode on this already?
Robert C. Newman II, psychologist-farmer, Riverside
This guy payed too much attention to those college advisors who want you have diversified interests.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, actor-businessman, Los Angeles
Oh, c'mon. The Terminator?! This guy doesn't stand a chance.
Gary Coleman, actor, Alameda
As I noted below in a previous post, I would prefer Mr. Drummond as governor. Maybe he'll be in the Cabinet. Although if someone could actually fit in a cabinet, it would be Gary Coleman. Oh, sorry that was a low blow. There I go again.
Mary "Mary Carey" Cook, adult film actress, Los Angeles
I would love to see her campaign commercials.
Leo Gallagher, actor, Los Angeles
I believe this is the guy who smashes watermelons. 'Nuff said.
Kurt E. Rightmyer, middleweight sumo wrestler, Los Angeles
Honestly, if you're going to run for governor as a sumo wrestler, don't be a middleweight! We want the huge lard-ass!
Ivan Alexander Hall III, custom denture manufacturer, Shasta
He has George Washington's vote.
Daniel T. Watts, college student, Santa Clara
This dude definitely gets mad girls now. Oh wait, he's running for the green party, never mind.
I actually have a 90 year old great-uncle who lives in California. He acts in community theater and does standup comedy one a week (this is all true). His name is Dave Elberger (he spells it with one "L" unlike myself). If a California resident is reading this, can you please vote for him as a write-in? He has as much merit as any of these other people.
Here are some of the choiciest of the 135 candidates in the Cali election:
Warren Farrell, fathers' issues author, San Diego
This is from his website: "Most campuses are turning women's studies into gender studies, but in reality, "gender" still excludes men. If you are with a college or university, the best way to finance me speaking is via the Student Activities Association. Inquire as to the number of feminist speakers they have invited. Then suggest me as a balance, but also point out that I am female-positive as well. It helps them to know that I am the only man in the US ever elected three times to the Board of Directors of the National Organization for Women (NOW) in New York City."
Whoa! Female-positive and a great self-promoter.
Larry Flynt, publisher, Los Angeles
Ah yes, Larry the average-Joe publisher. Enriching our culture, and maintaining male literacy. Hey, he never said to skip the articles. It's like when a newspaper calls a Hamas terrorist mastermind a spritual leader (Lhavdil).
James Henry Green, firefighter-paramedic-nurse, San Francisco
Obviously, he never saw Meet the Parents. Male nurses like Green and Greg Gaylord Fokker do not get much respect. Not that there is anything wrong with being a male nurse.
Bruce Martin Margolin, marijuana legislation attorney, Los Angeles
Does he put that on his resume?
David Laughing Horse Robinson, tribal chairman, Kern
This guy will get name recognition.
William S. Chambers, railroad switchman/brakeman, Placer
He will get California back on track. Horrible pun, I'm sorry. But in all seriousness, I totally respect this guy. It's about time that politics went back into the hands of the average blue-collar workers, like in the days of our founding fathers...who all had huge manors and estates and plantations and tons of slaves.
Michael Jackson, satellite project manager, Los Angeles
Again, name recognition. But wasn't there a Simpsons episode on this already?
Robert C. Newman II, psychologist-farmer, Riverside
This guy payed too much attention to those college advisors who want you have diversified interests.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, actor-businessman, Los Angeles
Oh, c'mon. The Terminator?! This guy doesn't stand a chance.
Gary Coleman, actor, Alameda
As I noted below in a previous post, I would prefer Mr. Drummond as governor. Maybe he'll be in the Cabinet. Although if someone could actually fit in a cabinet, it would be Gary Coleman. Oh, sorry that was a low blow. There I go again.
Mary "Mary Carey" Cook, adult film actress, Los Angeles
I would love to see her campaign commercials.
Leo Gallagher, actor, Los Angeles
I believe this is the guy who smashes watermelons. 'Nuff said.
Kurt E. Rightmyer, middleweight sumo wrestler, Los Angeles
Honestly, if you're going to run for governor as a sumo wrestler, don't be a middleweight! We want the huge lard-ass!
Ivan Alexander Hall III, custom denture manufacturer, Shasta
He has George Washington's vote.
Daniel T. Watts, college student, Santa Clara
This dude definitely gets mad girls now. Oh wait, he's running for the green party, never mind.
I actually have a 90 year old great-uncle who lives in California. He acts in community theater and does standup comedy one a week (this is all true). His name is Dave Elberger (he spells it with one "L" unlike myself). If a California resident is reading this, can you please vote for him as a write-in? He has as much merit as any of these other people.
Random question about blind people
(Sorry to interrupt Nannypalooza.)
I understand brail books. But in many public places or hotels or offices, there is brail on door and wall signs (eg, for directions or "men" and women" on the bathroom).
How do the blind people know to walk over to the wall or door and touch that little area where there is brail? And if you tell me that someone guides them, then that person could also read the sign for them. Anyone?
(Sorry to interrupt Nannypalooza.)
I understand brail books. But in many public places or hotels or offices, there is brail on door and wall signs (eg, for directions or "men" and women" on the bathroom).
How do the blind people know to walk over to the wall or door and touch that little area where there is brail? And if you tell me that someone guides them, then that person could also read the sign for them. Anyone?
Not to kick Larisa while she's down, but...
As a formerly subcontracted child, I have to take issue with parts of Larisa’s post and her subsequent defense.
I could tell you how much I learned from what seemed like, at times, a revolving door of baby-sitters/housekeepers, but that would be untrue and, more importantly, would miss the entire point of what Ehrenreich refers to as the “servant culture.”
Immigrants, with very few exceptions, start out at low-level jobs. That’s how things work. After washing up on the shores of New York City, my great-grandmother naturally took a job. Unfortunately for her, all of the spots for freelance journalists were taken, so she had to settle for a stool by a sewing machine in a sweatshop.
Today, immigrants, especially females, may still find themselves sewing for a living. Many, specifically those hailing from the Caribbean or Latin American countries, do not have the education necessary to enter into the kind of employment that you or I, as soon-to-be upwardly mobile Ivy Jews, would deem respectable.
Additionally, most aren’t too keen on paying taxes to their new government. The household job then becomes the natural favorite of these immigrants, not because of their race, but rather because it’s the best way to make money. And, unlike my great-grandmother and her contemporaries, those who choose to enter into domestic work face far better working conditions than their forebears.
I’m not sure how it works nowadays, but back when I was subcontracted, all new would-be Americans required a sponsor to obtain their green card and ultimately their citizenship. Most employers were eager to sponsor those who cared for their children and/or cleaned their homes. Not only could the household worker send money to support the family back home while becoming a citizen but, once citizenship was obtained, he or she would be able to sponsor others and allow them the opportunity to seek a better life in the United States.
Not to sound overly jingoistic, but the United States isn’t about racism and neither is the hired help phenomenon. Both are about giving people the opportunity to earn themselves a better life. My former baby-sitter Millicent, a native of Barbados, wasn’t there to teach me life lessons or cure me of racism. To look at it that way, as Larisa wrote, is foolish and most likely a rationalization. But to see a need for a rationalization is also mistaken. I’m sure that there are many families, like Larisa’s, who got along fine without hired help. But, to turn Tolstoy on his head, not all happy families are alike. My family would not have been able to function quite as well without “subcontracting” some of the household work. The housekeepers/babysitters weren’t there to indirectly finance Mommy’s Lexus, but rather to allow Mommy, after a full day at the office financing three private school educations (not to mention three future exorbitant college tuitions), time to help the kids with their homework instead of doing the laundry
So, while neither laundry nor racism are any fun, one does not necessarily feed into the other and to tie the need for hired help to the need for Lexi, expensive purses, and decadence in general, is missing the point.
As a formerly subcontracted child, I have to take issue with parts of Larisa’s post and her subsequent defense.
I could tell you how much I learned from what seemed like, at times, a revolving door of baby-sitters/housekeepers, but that would be untrue and, more importantly, would miss the entire point of what Ehrenreich refers to as the “servant culture.”
Immigrants, with very few exceptions, start out at low-level jobs. That’s how things work. After washing up on the shores of New York City, my great-grandmother naturally took a job. Unfortunately for her, all of the spots for freelance journalists were taken, so she had to settle for a stool by a sewing machine in a sweatshop.
Today, immigrants, especially females, may still find themselves sewing for a living. Many, specifically those hailing from the Caribbean or Latin American countries, do not have the education necessary to enter into the kind of employment that you or I, as soon-to-be upwardly mobile Ivy Jews, would deem respectable.
Additionally, most aren’t too keen on paying taxes to their new government. The household job then becomes the natural favorite of these immigrants, not because of their race, but rather because it’s the best way to make money. And, unlike my great-grandmother and her contemporaries, those who choose to enter into domestic work face far better working conditions than their forebears.
I’m not sure how it works nowadays, but back when I was subcontracted, all new would-be Americans required a sponsor to obtain their green card and ultimately their citizenship. Most employers were eager to sponsor those who cared for their children and/or cleaned their homes. Not only could the household worker send money to support the family back home while becoming a citizen but, once citizenship was obtained, he or she would be able to sponsor others and allow them the opportunity to seek a better life in the United States.
Not to sound overly jingoistic, but the United States isn’t about racism and neither is the hired help phenomenon. Both are about giving people the opportunity to earn themselves a better life. My former baby-sitter Millicent, a native of Barbados, wasn’t there to teach me life lessons or cure me of racism. To look at it that way, as Larisa wrote, is foolish and most likely a rationalization. But to see a need for a rationalization is also mistaken. I’m sure that there are many families, like Larisa’s, who got along fine without hired help. But, to turn Tolstoy on his head, not all happy families are alike. My family would not have been able to function quite as well without “subcontracting” some of the household work. The housekeepers/babysitters weren’t there to indirectly finance Mommy’s Lexus, but rather to allow Mommy, after a full day at the office financing three private school educations (not to mention three future exorbitant college tuitions), time to help the kids with their homework instead of doing the laundry
So, while neither laundry nor racism are any fun, one does not necessarily feed into the other and to tie the need for hired help to the need for Lexi, expensive purses, and decadence in general, is missing the point.
Mel Gibson the Objective Historian (with the next logical step that Jews really did commit horrible acts)
I earlier tonight made reference to a fact that, as we all know, Jews run Hollywood.
Give me an opportunity here for a second to indulge myself with one of my all-time favorite Weekend Update jokes, a joke from the blessed era of Norm McDonald. His timing was perfect and he perceived a beautiful thread of irony in this story:
"Well, earlier this week actor Marlon Brando met with Jewish leaders to apologize for comments he made on Larry King Live. Among them that, quote, 'Hollywood is run by Jews.' The Jewish leaders accepted Brando's apology, and announced that Brando is now free to work again."
Well, it turns out that it's not so clear that Hollywood is exclusively run by Jews, or that the Jews running Hollywood aren't themselves anti-Semitic (God, I hate Jewish anti-Semites). But enough theorizing.
The story has been public knowledge for months about Mel Gibson's new movie about Jesus with the anti-Semitic themes in it. Gibson has responded to these allegations, and Salon covered it tonight. I can't read the article as I don't subscribe to Salon (although I shall read it in its entirety when I can somehow obtain a copy), but the thesis is this: Mel Gibson "says his new Jesus biopic "The Passion" could never be anti-Semitic because it's historically correct -- a dumb, and dangerous, claim to make."
That much I know I agree with: Mel Gibson's understanding of history to is to incomplete to say that what he deems history is in fact agreed upon by everyone, that what he says happened actually happened, and that perhaps those things which he says happen that did not happen may have negative affects on the Jewish community.
I earlier tonight made reference to a fact that, as we all know, Jews run Hollywood.
Give me an opportunity here for a second to indulge myself with one of my all-time favorite Weekend Update jokes, a joke from the blessed era of Norm McDonald. His timing was perfect and he perceived a beautiful thread of irony in this story:
"Well, earlier this week actor Marlon Brando met with Jewish leaders to apologize for comments he made on Larry King Live. Among them that, quote, 'Hollywood is run by Jews.' The Jewish leaders accepted Brando's apology, and announced that Brando is now free to work again."
Well, it turns out that it's not so clear that Hollywood is exclusively run by Jews, or that the Jews running Hollywood aren't themselves anti-Semitic (God, I hate Jewish anti-Semites). But enough theorizing.
The story has been public knowledge for months about Mel Gibson's new movie about Jesus with the anti-Semitic themes in it. Gibson has responded to these allegations, and Salon covered it tonight. I can't read the article as I don't subscribe to Salon (although I shall read it in its entirety when I can somehow obtain a copy), but the thesis is this: Mel Gibson "says his new Jesus biopic "The Passion" could never be anti-Semitic because it's historically correct -- a dumb, and dangerous, claim to make."
That much I know I agree with: Mel Gibson's understanding of history to is to incomplete to say that what he deems history is in fact agreed upon by everyone, that what he says happened actually happened, and that perhaps those things which he says happen that did not happen may have negative affects on the Jewish community.
Intelletual Love
Bangitout.com's recent Top Ten on religious intellectuals, has sparked a renewed interest in pondering the intellectual tradition of our heritage, despite Larisa's refusal to contemplate intellectual values while choosing nail polish; no doubt you can find some book out there, assuming that it allows women the luxury of nail polish, that outlines the proper method of choosing one - but we'll leave that for a later hour. With Tu B'av on the loose, why not deal with relationships? And who better then the king of the interpersonal, Marty Buber.
In I and Thou, Buber explains the art of human dialogue and the proper method of meeting the "Other." Needless to say, virgins stomping around in white sheets in the fields of Rehovot, although being a Zionist, Buber would have found the adventure quite comical. Genuine human dialogue, according to Buber, can be either spoken of silent; its essence lies in the fact that "each of the participants really has in mind the other or others in their present and particular being and turns to them with the intention of establishing a living mutual relations between himself and them." To meet "the other" we must be concerned with him/her as someone truly different from ourselves, but at the same time as someone with whom we can enter into relationship. This is the essence of friendship and love, in which each member of the relation is made present by the other in his/her concrete presence and individuality. What counts is the mutual reality that exists between the partners, which cannot be reduced to what goes on within each of them respectively.
How would Buber have celebrated Tu B'Av? While it's difficult to say (Buber wasn't exactly into the idea of commandments) dialogue is at the center of importance for Buber's conception of religion. Therefore, the whole dancing shpeel, with the white dresses and fields of wheat would have most certainly been out of the picture. But more importantly, the experience of the dialogue, allowing opportunities for individuals to connect, would have been at the epicenter of the Buber's annual Tu B'Av barbeque. Would there have been hooking up? Most definately. Of course the subjective nature of the hookup, would depend on where you came from. But with Mrs. Buber's Jewish affiliation still precarious we really can't know.
Bangitout.com's recent Top Ten on religious intellectuals, has sparked a renewed interest in pondering the intellectual tradition of our heritage, despite Larisa's refusal to contemplate intellectual values while choosing nail polish; no doubt you can find some book out there, assuming that it allows women the luxury of nail polish, that outlines the proper method of choosing one - but we'll leave that for a later hour. With Tu B'av on the loose, why not deal with relationships? And who better then the king of the interpersonal, Marty Buber.
In I and Thou, Buber explains the art of human dialogue and the proper method of meeting the "Other." Needless to say, virgins stomping around in white sheets in the fields of Rehovot, although being a Zionist, Buber would have found the adventure quite comical. Genuine human dialogue, according to Buber, can be either spoken of silent; its essence lies in the fact that "each of the participants really has in mind the other or others in their present and particular being and turns to them with the intention of establishing a living mutual relations between himself and them." To meet "the other" we must be concerned with him/her as someone truly different from ourselves, but at the same time as someone with whom we can enter into relationship. This is the essence of friendship and love, in which each member of the relation is made present by the other in his/her concrete presence and individuality. What counts is the mutual reality that exists between the partners, which cannot be reduced to what goes on within each of them respectively.
How would Buber have celebrated Tu B'Av? While it's difficult to say (Buber wasn't exactly into the idea of commandments) dialogue is at the center of importance for Buber's conception of religion. Therefore, the whole dancing shpeel, with the white dresses and fields of wheat would have most certainly been out of the picture. But more importantly, the experience of the dialogue, allowing opportunities for individuals to connect, would have been at the epicenter of the Buber's annual Tu B'Av barbeque. Would there have been hooking up? Most definately. Of course the subjective nature of the hookup, would depend on where you came from. But with Mrs. Buber's Jewish affiliation still precarious we really can't know.
The Jews and Arnold: More than a money game?
All the incites on Arnold's precarious relationships with the Jews notwithstanding, the heavy hitters here in LaLa land still support the Terminator. Although I can bring no proof with web links for this discussion, I was told by the director at of the Simon Weistental Center yesterday that Arnold approached him first more than ten years ago to investigate his (Arnold's) father and his connection to Nazi war crimes. Rabbi Marvin Hier, the director of the Center, and a two time winner of the Oscars, went on record affirming Arnold's dedication to the Center, stating he is "not an anti-semite." Arnold's silence with regards to Waldheim does not symbolize his indifference to the Holocaust or brand him as a Nazi sympathizer. Waldheim has further yet to be ever indicted with war crimes, though it seems as if the entire world suspects his past.
Analysts in California also debunk the influence of the Latino vote. In fact, the Latino voice, while highly public, lacks voting power due to high illegal immigration and high levels of illiteracy. Bustemante may portray himself as a voice for the Latino vote, but in reality he'll stay in power because he has the experience of more than 6 years as Lieutenant Governor more than anything else. As far as Republicans and Democrates go, the liberals want to float the state budget with more bonds and higher taxes, something the wealthy Jewish population of Beverly Hills and Los Angeles will not tolerate. And while Jews are far from deciding the outcome of the election, when money is an issue the Jewish vote is called upon. Gray Davis recently asked a number of prominent Californian Jewish philantropists for $10,000 contributions to his anti-recall campaign. Needless to say, he was turned down very quickly. Instead of rallying around Davis, the "who's who" of California's Jewish philantropic community turned up at a reception honoring Vice President Cheney. So it's not quite clear if foreign policy is the only thing that will swing a west coast vote to the Republican agenda. If taxes soar no one will be happy. And while the economy is not just Gray's fault, someone has to take the heat, and Californians have found their man. All thanks to Darrel Issa....a bit of, how do you say? Irony.
All the incites on Arnold's precarious relationships with the Jews notwithstanding, the heavy hitters here in LaLa land still support the Terminator. Although I can bring no proof with web links for this discussion, I was told by the director at of the Simon Weistental Center yesterday that Arnold approached him first more than ten years ago to investigate his (Arnold's) father and his connection to Nazi war crimes. Rabbi Marvin Hier, the director of the Center, and a two time winner of the Oscars, went on record affirming Arnold's dedication to the Center, stating he is "not an anti-semite." Arnold's silence with regards to Waldheim does not symbolize his indifference to the Holocaust or brand him as a Nazi sympathizer. Waldheim has further yet to be ever indicted with war crimes, though it seems as if the entire world suspects his past.
Analysts in California also debunk the influence of the Latino vote. In fact, the Latino voice, while highly public, lacks voting power due to high illegal immigration and high levels of illiteracy. Bustemante may portray himself as a voice for the Latino vote, but in reality he'll stay in power because he has the experience of more than 6 years as Lieutenant Governor more than anything else. As far as Republicans and Democrates go, the liberals want to float the state budget with more bonds and higher taxes, something the wealthy Jewish population of Beverly Hills and Los Angeles will not tolerate. And while Jews are far from deciding the outcome of the election, when money is an issue the Jewish vote is called upon. Gray Davis recently asked a number of prominent Californian Jewish philantropists for $10,000 contributions to his anti-recall campaign. Needless to say, he was turned down very quickly. Instead of rallying around Davis, the "who's who" of California's Jewish philantropic community turned up at a reception honoring Vice President Cheney. So it's not quite clear if foreign policy is the only thing that will swing a west coast vote to the Republican agenda. If taxes soar no one will be happy. And while the economy is not just Gray's fault, someone has to take the heat, and Californians have found their man. All thanks to Darrel Issa....a bit of, how do you say? Irony.
Schwarzenegger and the Holocaust
Apparently, Jews aren't going to turn out for Schwarzenegger at the polls, as the JTA reports today. As you already know from the Chatterbox piece on the Nazi issue, Schwarzenegger has never apologized for supporting Kurt Waldheim in Austrian elections years ago, even after it came out that Waldheim had been a Nazi during World War II. Chatterbox claimed that that this refusal would cost him the election. As I mentioned when this piece came out last week, this is not the case. It is impossible to construe Schwarzenegger's support for Waldheim as support or sympathy for Nazism. In fact, as Zev wrote last Friday, Schwarzenegger supports the Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. Still, his unwillingness to condemn former Nazis among his family, friends, and political allies shows a lack of moral staunchness, one that may cost him support among people for whom the remembering the Holocaust remains a vital part of their life missions. Others will take less offense realizing Arnold's insensitivity for what it is: not anti-Semitism, but political savvy and insensitivity to overarching moral concerns.
At this point, allow me to interject my commentary: Arnold is certainly not insensitive to the Holocaust. Those who equate him with one of "Hitler's Willing Executioners" for not forthrightly condemning post-facto those who were involved in the Holocaust are overstating their case. Arnold was not there, had no influence on the sequence of events in the Holocaust, and if he chooses due to political and personal (read: he doesn't want to condemn family members and friends) reasons not to condemn those who participated, his silence has no great ramifications on who lives and who dies. It may not be admirable, but I do not call it evil. Evil is not defined as the absence of good. [For an interesting commentary on the this issue of children blaming parents for Holocaust involvement, check out Born Guilty by Peter Sichrovsky. Sichrovsky's life is an interesting story that I may cover in more detail later.]
So Why Else Won't Jews Vote for Schwarzenegger?
Jews won't vote for Arnold because of the Holocaust issue, one, but also for a more typical reason, a reason that usually draws less passionate discussion: Jews are not Republicans. Of course since 9/11, Jews have become more Republican, in the wake of George Bush's stance on Islamic terrorism. But in terms of domestic issues, Jews are still largely Democratic. In a Governor's race, especially in one like California's where the economy is a pressing issue, Islamic terrorism is a non-issue. Of course the economy there was wrecked under a Democratic governor, so people in general are more likely to vote for a Republican, but Jews still feel strongly Democratic in terms of welfare, education, and other issues. JTA reports that Gray Davis, who barely won the last election, received 69 percent of the Jewish vote. I would not be surprised if Jews, despite any non-election year coattails Pres. Bush may offer, still voted Democratic, likely for Cruz Bustamante, the current Lieutenant Governor.
Will the Jewish Vote Matter?
When the Holocaust issue was flaring up in the Jewish press, the national press was reporting about concerns over Schwarzenegger's support for California Proposition 187, which the New York Times described as "a successful ballot initiative barring illegal immigrants from receiving state services." The Jews may run Hollywood, but in Democracy, power is little substitute for numbers, making the assumption that those numbers will get out to vote their interests. In 2000, Latinos numbered just under 11 million in California, about 32 percent, and were the fastest-growing segment of the population by race. According to a 1995 study by the AJC, Jews numbered 922,000, or 2.9 percent. Plus, the Latinos have one of their own running for Governor very prominently, second only to Schwarzenegger in the polling so far, Bustamante. The Holocaust issue will not decide whether Schwarzenegger wins the Governorship of California, but Latino reaction to Proposition 187 will.
Apparently, Jews aren't going to turn out for Schwarzenegger at the polls, as the JTA reports today. As you already know from the Chatterbox piece on the Nazi issue, Schwarzenegger has never apologized for supporting Kurt Waldheim in Austrian elections years ago, even after it came out that Waldheim had been a Nazi during World War II. Chatterbox claimed that that this refusal would cost him the election. As I mentioned when this piece came out last week, this is not the case. It is impossible to construe Schwarzenegger's support for Waldheim as support or sympathy for Nazism. In fact, as Zev wrote last Friday, Schwarzenegger supports the Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. Still, his unwillingness to condemn former Nazis among his family, friends, and political allies shows a lack of moral staunchness, one that may cost him support among people for whom the remembering the Holocaust remains a vital part of their life missions. Others will take less offense realizing Arnold's insensitivity for what it is: not anti-Semitism, but political savvy and insensitivity to overarching moral concerns.
At this point, allow me to interject my commentary: Arnold is certainly not insensitive to the Holocaust. Those who equate him with one of "Hitler's Willing Executioners" for not forthrightly condemning post-facto those who were involved in the Holocaust are overstating their case. Arnold was not there, had no influence on the sequence of events in the Holocaust, and if he chooses due to political and personal (read: he doesn't want to condemn family members and friends) reasons not to condemn those who participated, his silence has no great ramifications on who lives and who dies. It may not be admirable, but I do not call it evil. Evil is not defined as the absence of good. [For an interesting commentary on the this issue of children blaming parents for Holocaust involvement, check out Born Guilty by Peter Sichrovsky. Sichrovsky's life is an interesting story that I may cover in more detail later.]
So Why Else Won't Jews Vote for Schwarzenegger?
Jews won't vote for Arnold because of the Holocaust issue, one, but also for a more typical reason, a reason that usually draws less passionate discussion: Jews are not Republicans. Of course since 9/11, Jews have become more Republican, in the wake of George Bush's stance on Islamic terrorism. But in terms of domestic issues, Jews are still largely Democratic. In a Governor's race, especially in one like California's where the economy is a pressing issue, Islamic terrorism is a non-issue. Of course the economy there was wrecked under a Democratic governor, so people in general are more likely to vote for a Republican, but Jews still feel strongly Democratic in terms of welfare, education, and other issues. JTA reports that Gray Davis, who barely won the last election, received 69 percent of the Jewish vote. I would not be surprised if Jews, despite any non-election year coattails Pres. Bush may offer, still voted Democratic, likely for Cruz Bustamante, the current Lieutenant Governor.
Will the Jewish Vote Matter?
When the Holocaust issue was flaring up in the Jewish press, the national press was reporting about concerns over Schwarzenegger's support for California Proposition 187, which the New York Times described as "a successful ballot initiative barring illegal immigrants from receiving state services." The Jews may run Hollywood, but in Democracy, power is little substitute for numbers, making the assumption that those numbers will get out to vote their interests. In 2000, Latinos numbered just under 11 million in California, about 32 percent, and were the fastest-growing segment of the population by race. According to a 1995 study by the AJC, Jews numbered 922,000, or 2.9 percent. Plus, the Latinos have one of their own running for Governor very prominently, second only to Schwarzenegger in the polling so far, Bustamante. The Holocaust issue will not decide whether Schwarzenegger wins the Governorship of California, but Latino reaction to Proposition 187 will.
Wednesday, August 13, 2003
For an unmarried Jewish woman, there's no day to start blogging like Tu B'Av.
Or at least that's the way it used to be.
While modernity has brought us such advances as refrigerators (ice cream wouldn't exist without it) and the internet (Paul might not have friends without it), it would be a lie to say that the world is a wholly better place than it was in the time of our forefathers.
There was once a time when unmarried Jewish women would don white dresses and dance in the fields, thereby netting strapping young males committed to Judaism and ready to marry and provide for them. As is evident by Yedidiah's rose-colored post on the subject, it clearly takes an unmarried Jewish woman to note that, in the words of the singer/songwriter Bob Dylan, "Things have changed."
These days, the Jewish dating world is mostly black and white but, unlike the time of the Mishna, it is the black that is desirable, not the white. Think about it--black hats, black skirts, etc. Black, it seems, is "frum" [sincerely religious] while white, its humble opposite, is "fry" [the opposite of aforementioned "frum". Dancing involving a wall, if not many NYC blocks, separating males and females, is "frum." Men watching women dance in a field is most definitely "fry."
I don't mean to pass judgment on walled dancing, black hats, or the like, but only to point out the change that has taken place since the time when Tu B'Av was celebrated in a forum other than an internet blog. These days, a Jewish woman who dons a white dress and dances in a field will most likely not end up with a strapping young Jewish male committed to Torah. (Black velvet yarmulked Paul probably wouldn't marry such a girl, but "dvar torahs are for the masses" Yedidiah just might--draw your own conclusions).
On the other hand, with the increase in the number of young Jewish males who learn for a living, the black-skirted gal might just have to fend for herself when it comes to sending the kids to the ever-more expensive Jewish day schools.
So you see, much has changed since Mishnaic times, and most likely to the detriment of Jewish women. Sure we get to learn Gemarah [the Talmud], but who really wants a girl who learns Gemarah?
Or at least that's the way it used to be.
While modernity has brought us such advances as refrigerators (ice cream wouldn't exist without it) and the internet (Paul might not have friends without it), it would be a lie to say that the world is a wholly better place than it was in the time of our forefathers.
There was once a time when unmarried Jewish women would don white dresses and dance in the fields, thereby netting strapping young males committed to Judaism and ready to marry and provide for them. As is evident by Yedidiah's rose-colored post on the subject, it clearly takes an unmarried Jewish woman to note that, in the words of the singer/songwriter Bob Dylan, "Things have changed."
These days, the Jewish dating world is mostly black and white but, unlike the time of the Mishna, it is the black that is desirable, not the white. Think about it--black hats, black skirts, etc. Black, it seems, is "frum" [sincerely religious] while white, its humble opposite, is "fry" [the opposite of aforementioned "frum". Dancing involving a wall, if not many NYC blocks, separating males and females, is "frum." Men watching women dance in a field is most definitely "fry."
I don't mean to pass judgment on walled dancing, black hats, or the like, but only to point out the change that has taken place since the time when Tu B'Av was celebrated in a forum other than an internet blog. These days, a Jewish woman who dons a white dress and dances in a field will most likely not end up with a strapping young Jewish male committed to Torah. (Black velvet yarmulked Paul probably wouldn't marry such a girl, but "dvar torahs are for the masses" Yedidiah just might--draw your own conclusions).
On the other hand, with the increase in the number of young Jewish males who learn for a living, the black-skirted gal might just have to fend for herself when it comes to sending the kids to the ever-more expensive Jewish day schools.
So you see, much has changed since Mishnaic times, and most likely to the detriment of Jewish women. Sure we get to learn Gemarah [the Talmud], but who really wants a girl who learns Gemarah?
Happy Tu B'av
When
Today, my friends, is a little known (or celebrated) Jewish holiday called Tu B'av, "the 15th of the month of Av," not to be confused with Tisha B'av, the 9th of Av. Other than yet another excuse to take off work, this holiday celebrates--and no this isnt a joke--the expansion of the marriage pool for Jewish women.
What
The Mishna reports that in days of old Tu B'av was one of the two most joyous days of the year (Yom Kippur being the other; the latter is solemn yet joyous since we have the opportunity to repent). The celebration goes like this: all single Jewish women wear white dresses that they each borrow from one another (so as not to make the poor girl feel awkward when she needs to borrow clothes). The girls then dance in the vineyards on the outskirts of Jerusalem, and all single men go to watch and flirt.
Why
The day commemorates two related events:
i) Moses inquired before God whether the daughters of Zelafchad (who had died without any sons) should receive their father's estate, or be bypassed as heirs, as was previously assumed in Jewish law. God informs Moses that the daughters should indeed become heirs, but on the condition that they marry within their tribe. Once the Jews settled in Israel, though, the ban could be lifted; and it was lifted on the Fifteenth of Av.
ii) The book of Judges reports the actions of inhospitable Benjamites, who abused and killed a visiting couple. As a response the other tribes enacted sanctions, forbidding their daughters to marry any of the men from Benjamin. This ban, too, was lifted on the fifteenth of Av.
So for the past few thousand years a Jewish woman has been able to marry any man she chooses...so long as he's Jewish of course, and with guys like Paul still on the market, we know this isn't any limitation at all!
When
Today, my friends, is a little known (or celebrated) Jewish holiday called Tu B'av, "the 15th of the month of Av," not to be confused with Tisha B'av, the 9th of Av. Other than yet another excuse to take off work, this holiday celebrates--and no this isnt a joke--the expansion of the marriage pool for Jewish women.
What
The Mishna reports that in days of old Tu B'av was one of the two most joyous days of the year (Yom Kippur being the other; the latter is solemn yet joyous since we have the opportunity to repent). The celebration goes like this: all single Jewish women wear white dresses that they each borrow from one another (so as not to make the poor girl feel awkward when she needs to borrow clothes). The girls then dance in the vineyards on the outskirts of Jerusalem, and all single men go to watch and flirt.
Why
The day commemorates two related events:
i) Moses inquired before God whether the daughters of Zelafchad (who had died without any sons) should receive their father's estate, or be bypassed as heirs, as was previously assumed in Jewish law. God informs Moses that the daughters should indeed become heirs, but on the condition that they marry within their tribe. Once the Jews settled in Israel, though, the ban could be lifted; and it was lifted on the Fifteenth of Av.
ii) The book of Judges reports the actions of inhospitable Benjamites, who abused and killed a visiting couple. As a response the other tribes enacted sanctions, forbidding their daughters to marry any of the men from Benjamin. This ban, too, was lifted on the fifteenth of Av.
So for the past few thousand years a Jewish woman has been able to marry any man she chooses...so long as he's Jewish of course, and with guys like Paul still on the market, we know this isn't any limitation at all!
Alleged 9-11 terrorist hires Jewish lawyer
This is absurd. If the headline doesn't disturb you enough, read the rest of the article
There is a extremely dramatic moment in the article, when the Jew and the Jew-hater looked into each other's eyes and all was forgiven. It must be have been love at first sight:
Michael Rosenthal, a criminal defense lawyer based in the southern city of Karlsruhe, openly discussed his Jewishness with Mzoudi at their first meeting having read the indictment that says Mzoudi was part of the group with a "radically anti-American and anti-Jewish position."
"He smiled and said 'I think your problem (with it) is larger than mine,' and we both smiled and got on with it," said Rosenthal, 50. "I liked his reaction and I liked his smile. It obviously didn't matter."
Hmm, let's analyze this, shall we? Rosenthal concedes that the alleged terrorist and known anti-semite has no problem with using a Jew to avoid going to jail, but then, oh, how funny and delightful, tells us how they both agreed that Rosenthal could potentially have a problem with representing someone who wants to kill him, his family, and everyone in his religion.
And even if Rosenthal thought for an instant it might be a bit unethical, if not downright illogical, for him to defend this anti-semite, it was all washed away because he liked his smile. Now I wonder why a man who devoted his life to killing Westerners, and especially Jews, would be smiling when he meets with a Jew who will work to free him? He must be a big fan of irony.
This is absurd. If the headline doesn't disturb you enough, read the rest of the article
There is a extremely dramatic moment in the article, when the Jew and the Jew-hater looked into each other's eyes and all was forgiven. It must be have been love at first sight:
Michael Rosenthal, a criminal defense lawyer based in the southern city of Karlsruhe, openly discussed his Jewishness with Mzoudi at their first meeting having read the indictment that says Mzoudi was part of the group with a "radically anti-American and anti-Jewish position."
"He smiled and said 'I think your problem (with it) is larger than mine,' and we both smiled and got on with it," said Rosenthal, 50. "I liked his reaction and I liked his smile. It obviously didn't matter."
Hmm, let's analyze this, shall we? Rosenthal concedes that the alleged terrorist and known anti-semite has no problem with using a Jew to avoid going to jail, but then, oh, how funny and delightful, tells us how they both agreed that Rosenthal could potentially have a problem with representing someone who wants to kill him, his family, and everyone in his religion.
And even if Rosenthal thought for an instant it might be a bit unethical, if not downright illogical, for him to defend this anti-semite, it was all washed away because he liked his smile. Now I wonder why a man who devoted his life to killing Westerners, and especially Jews, would be smiling when he meets with a Jew who will work to free him? He must be a big fan of irony.
Man Arrested in Attempted Sale of Missile to Undercover FBI Agent
Wow! What a crazy story. A Briton of Indian heritage was arrested today after he was tricked into selling a missile to an undercover FBI agent. The FBI agent specified only that the missile be able to bring down a commercial airplane. He was under cover as a fanatical Muslim. The deal had been building up for months. The missile that the Briton tried to sell turned out to be nonfunctional.
Sen. Barbara Boxer is putting forward legislation to arm all 6,800 American commercial aircraft with defenses against anti-aircraft missiles.
The unidentified Briton, who awaits trial in Newark, NJ, has been quoted as sympathizing with Osama Bin Laden.
This case reveals the improved cooperation of the United States with Russia in fighting terrorism, as Russia allowed the FBI to work within its borders.
Although the weapon is nonfunctional, it is not clear where he got it, or where people could get such weapons on the black market. Chechens have been using them, among other terrorist groups. Details will continue to emerge regarding whom he worked for, if anyone, and whether he had any connections to real terrorist organizations. It would be surprising, though, were he to belong to any terrorist group, because then he would probably have been more attuned to whatever cover the FBI agent was under.
Wow! What a crazy story. A Briton of Indian heritage was arrested today after he was tricked into selling a missile to an undercover FBI agent. The FBI agent specified only that the missile be able to bring down a commercial airplane. He was under cover as a fanatical Muslim. The deal had been building up for months. The missile that the Briton tried to sell turned out to be nonfunctional.
Sen. Barbara Boxer is putting forward legislation to arm all 6,800 American commercial aircraft with defenses against anti-aircraft missiles.
The unidentified Briton, who awaits trial in Newark, NJ, has been quoted as sympathizing with Osama Bin Laden.
This case reveals the improved cooperation of the United States with Russia in fighting terrorism, as Russia allowed the FBI to work within its borders.
Although the weapon is nonfunctional, it is not clear where he got it, or where people could get such weapons on the black market. Chechens have been using them, among other terrorist groups. Details will continue to emerge regarding whom he worked for, if anyone, and whether he had any connections to real terrorist organizations. It would be surprising, though, were he to belong to any terrorist group, because then he would probably have been more attuned to whatever cover the FBI agent was under.
Tuesday, August 12, 2003
Still Single?
As an over-the-hill single male, I often have nothing better to do than wait for the lonely hours to pass while seated in front of my computer. As I desperately struggle to keep my frequent tears from damaging the keyboard I ask myself, “why oh why is my life like this?”
Why am I still single? I can’t figure it out. I’m nearly a college graduate, and a blogger! Shouldn’t girls be fighting over me?
Finally, the very internet that is my solace in solitude has provided the answer. No longer will I wallow away Saturday night (or Sunday night or weeknights) in front of the computer for I have discovered ”6 Reasons She Won’t Have Dinner With You Again” by the Men’s Wearhouse. Before you question getting relationship advice from a midprice clothing store, take a look at the insights (my comments in parentheses):
1. You started eating before anyone else was served. (Yes I did, but I wouldn’t mind if she started first were she served first. It’s common courtesy a la Larry David. I wouldn’t want to be dating someone who didn’t feel this way anyway.)
2. You didn't look the waiter in the eye while ordering and you grabbed the busboy by the arm. (I think the real problem was that I didn’t look her in the eye and I grabbed the busboy. OK, twice.)
3. You picked a three star restaurant, and then talked business all night. (Yes, but the business I talked was entirely made up to make her think I was important. I admit, though, that pretending to get a call from my lawyer during dinner was a bit much.)
4. You tipped 15%, regardless of service. (I thought she left the tip! Guess we can’t go back there anyway.)
5. You didn't stand up when she came back from the ladies room. (You got me there. I didn’t even know that people still did this. Or maybe I did know but chose to suppress this information and remain seated due to difficult psychological issues stemming from a poor relationship with my parents growing up. Or, maybe I’m fat and lazy and she caught me.)
6. You gestured with the silverware. (I suppose the fact that the ‘silverware’ was plastic doesn’t help me much.)
As an over-the-hill single male, I often have nothing better to do than wait for the lonely hours to pass while seated in front of my computer. As I desperately struggle to keep my frequent tears from damaging the keyboard I ask myself, “why oh why is my life like this?”
Why am I still single? I can’t figure it out. I’m nearly a college graduate, and a blogger! Shouldn’t girls be fighting over me?
Finally, the very internet that is my solace in solitude has provided the answer. No longer will I wallow away Saturday night (or Sunday night or weeknights) in front of the computer for I have discovered ”6 Reasons She Won’t Have Dinner With You Again” by the Men’s Wearhouse. Before you question getting relationship advice from a midprice clothing store, take a look at the insights (my comments in parentheses):
1. You started eating before anyone else was served. (Yes I did, but I wouldn’t mind if she started first were she served first. It’s common courtesy a la Larry David. I wouldn’t want to be dating someone who didn’t feel this way anyway.)
2. You didn't look the waiter in the eye while ordering and you grabbed the busboy by the arm. (I think the real problem was that I didn’t look her in the eye and I grabbed the busboy. OK, twice.)
3. You picked a three star restaurant, and then talked business all night. (Yes, but the business I talked was entirely made up to make her think I was important. I admit, though, that pretending to get a call from my lawyer during dinner was a bit much.)
4. You tipped 15%, regardless of service. (I thought she left the tip! Guess we can’t go back there anyway.)
5. You didn't stand up when she came back from the ladies room. (You got me there. I didn’t even know that people still did this. Or maybe I did know but chose to suppress this information and remain seated due to difficult psychological issues stemming from a poor relationship with my parents growing up. Or, maybe I’m fat and lazy and she caught me.)
6. You gestured with the silverware. (I suppose the fact that the ‘silverware’ was plastic doesn’t help me much.)
So-Called Hudna Ends on Intifada's Anniversary
From CNN: "'Unfortunately this whole road map ... is only a fig leaf behind which the terrorist organizations are hiding and are rearming themselves and preparing themselves for exactly the type of incident we saw today,' said Jonathan Peled, an Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman."
Has anyone realized that the [now-so-called] Hudna officially ends the same week as the 3 Year anniversary of the Intifada? The one year anniversary of Sharon's ascent to the Temple Mount and the subsequent Palestinian attacks is September 28th. The Hudna ends September 29th. Whether or not the near overlap is coincidental, it can only help a rallying Hamas come the end of September.
From CNN: "'Unfortunately this whole road map ... is only a fig leaf behind which the terrorist organizations are hiding and are rearming themselves and preparing themselves for exactly the type of incident we saw today,' said Jonathan Peled, an Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman."
Has anyone realized that the [now-so-called] Hudna officially ends the same week as the 3 Year anniversary of the Intifada? The one year anniversary of Sharon's ascent to the Temple Mount and the subsequent Palestinian attacks is September 28th. The Hudna ends September 29th. Whether or not the near overlap is coincidental, it can only help a rallying Hamas come the end of September.
Cease the Ceasefire Talk
For those who haven't heard, Hamas and Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade claimed responsibility for two suicide bombings in Israel. Both bombings were in violation of a ceasefire signed 6 weeks ago. According to CNN, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, in a speech Tuesday in Maine, said, "I've already seen reports on television that say, 'Well, the road map is now finished,' or, 'Cease-fire is over,' or, 'This is all off track.' No, it is not!"
While the fate of the roadmap remains debatable, the cease-fire is patently, definitionally, over. That Powell failed to make that clear is unfortunate, and will make Israel's inevitable military response appear to be in equal violation of the ceasefire as today's attacks by Hamas and Al Aqsa. Israel's military responses, however, imply no such violation of any ceasefire. Whether or not one is of the opinion that Israel should respond to terror attacks with force, there is no question that if they do so now they will not have impinged upon the integrity of any ceasefire, since such a ceasefire no longer exists.
For those who haven't heard, Hamas and Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade claimed responsibility for two suicide bombings in Israel. Both bombings were in violation of a ceasefire signed 6 weeks ago. According to CNN, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, in a speech Tuesday in Maine, said, "I've already seen reports on television that say, 'Well, the road map is now finished,' or, 'Cease-fire is over,' or, 'This is all off track.' No, it is not!"
While the fate of the roadmap remains debatable, the cease-fire is patently, definitionally, over. That Powell failed to make that clear is unfortunate, and will make Israel's inevitable military response appear to be in equal violation of the ceasefire as today's attacks by Hamas and Al Aqsa. Israel's military responses, however, imply no such violation of any ceasefire. Whether or not one is of the opinion that Israel should respond to terror attacks with force, there is no question that if they do so now they will not have impinged upon the integrity of any ceasefire, since such a ceasefire no longer exists.
The Youngsters of Zion
Oh Larisa, you just reminded me! I missed the Elders meeting again this year! Why don't I ever get the invitation?! And this is the second time - the Mossad has yet to give me an adequate explanation for why they didn't call me on Septemeber 10th!
Not to mention what happened to my great great great grandparents, who were left in the dark when the Jews started the French Revolution. Oh, and then the damn Zionists kept it secret from my Russian ancestors that they were starting the Communist Revolution. If you don't believe me, just ask a credible source - the Hamas charter: http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm
Hey, if we have the capability to put a man on the moon....then we can fake putting a man on the moon
Speaking of conspiracies, I'm sure some of you have heard that conspiracy theorists maintain that the moon-landing was a fake. Well, when one of these loonies confronted Buzz Aldrin, good ol' Buzz whacked him. It all happened on camera.
Or did it? Notice in the video how the left hook hits the cheek at a 75 degree angle, which would normally cause the victim's upper jaw to fly upwards at a velocity of 2.2 m/s. Not to mention the barometer reading of LA, which would cause tiny spit particles to evaporate at a rate of 2 beads per second. It's obviously a fake video, meant to brainwash the American public into believing our astronauts are heroes. Who's behind it? Disney and the Mossad!
Disney, the makers of Toy Story, obviously want their character Buzz Lightyear to reflect the attributes of his namesake. Disney feared the conspiracy theorists would eventually prove the real Buzz hadn't made it to infiniti and beyond, and would ruin marketing of the film. So they hired a look a like and staged the Buzz punch video.
And the Mossad? Well, c'mon, must I explain?
Oh Larisa, you just reminded me! I missed the Elders meeting again this year! Why don't I ever get the invitation?! And this is the second time - the Mossad has yet to give me an adequate explanation for why they didn't call me on Septemeber 10th!
Not to mention what happened to my great great great grandparents, who were left in the dark when the Jews started the French Revolution. Oh, and then the damn Zionists kept it secret from my Russian ancestors that they were starting the Communist Revolution. If you don't believe me, just ask a credible source - the Hamas charter: http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm
Hey, if we have the capability to put a man on the moon....then we can fake putting a man on the moon
Speaking of conspiracies, I'm sure some of you have heard that conspiracy theorists maintain that the moon-landing was a fake. Well, when one of these loonies confronted Buzz Aldrin, good ol' Buzz whacked him. It all happened on camera.
Or did it? Notice in the video how the left hook hits the cheek at a 75 degree angle, which would normally cause the victim's upper jaw to fly upwards at a velocity of 2.2 m/s. Not to mention the barometer reading of LA, which would cause tiny spit particles to evaporate at a rate of 2 beads per second. It's obviously a fake video, meant to brainwash the American public into believing our astronauts are heroes. Who's behind it? Disney and the Mossad!
Disney, the makers of Toy Story, obviously want their character Buzz Lightyear to reflect the attributes of his namesake. Disney feared the conspiracy theorists would eventually prove the real Buzz hadn't made it to infiniti and beyond, and would ruin marketing of the film. So they hired a look a like and staged the Buzz punch video.
And the Mossad? Well, c'mon, must I explain?
Monday, August 11, 2003
Confessions of a Frum Intellectual (tonight, right after red shoe diaries)
Courtesy of Bangitout.com, Top Ten Signs You're a Frum [Religious] Intellectual by David Rosen and Daniel Kasell. Now, Rosen and Kassell are two Cornellians I know fairly well, and Rosen himself admitted that he had me in mind when composing this piece (since this is one of his best, it's quite a compliment), so I figured some commentary was in order. I'm gonna post all 10, add some terminological explanation in brackets, and respond in bold alongside each charge. Afterwards, Ill conclude with some general reflections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Your Divrei Torah [bible lessons, typically delivered during meals] always include one of the following phrases: Imitatio Dei, Ex Nihilo, A Priori (put in italics).
Divrei Torah? C'mon Dave, how many times do I need to tell ya, theyre for the masses to give...
9. You dont see any inherent value in Carlebach minyanim [new age-sing songy-lots of clapping-reckless abandonment of centuries old tunes-words and tune need not match-ohhh it just feels so right.. Prayer service ] and Yisroel Williger concerts, but you still think they are important for "keeping the masses in tow".
Though this was indeed my old approach to Carlebach, I now have a new one. Believe it or not, I was a regular attendee at DC's friday night Carlebach minyan this summer, and it wasn't even the latest minyan offered. I've found that Carlebach tunes make for great background reading noise, and when the clapping starts I always feel like they're cheering for me. And since there's nothing Halakhic about Kabbalat Shabbos anyway...
8. You are only willing to attend a shiur whose title contains the phrase "From the perspective of the Rav".
Sooo year in Israel...These days we skip Soloveitchik and go straight to the sources, Kant and Kierkegaard.
7. You have thoroughly studied the intricacies of the Contradiction of Free Will and an all-knowing God, but you don't know what bracha [blessing] to say on a banana.
Made me chuckle, but...Haadama you bigot.
6. Shul is always a good time to catch up on some reading.
Especially Carlebach Minyanim...c.f. # 9
5. Instead of referring to God as 'God' or 'Hashem', you use fancier words like "The Godhead" or "The Deity".
Damned straight yo
4. Learning mussar [ethical admonishment, usually simplistic and fanatical] is bitul Torah [a waste of valuable Torah study time].
No way...Mussar is a valuable if irrelevant part of the Jewish intellectual tradition... As Saul Lieberman so aptly remarked about Kabbalah: "Mysticism is nonsense, but the study of nonsense is scholarship!" The best Mussar comes from outside the tradition: CS Lewis' Screwtape Letters , for example.
3. When giving a Dvar Torah, you feel the need to either quote the New Testament or Apocrypha.
2. When someone mentions an Aish Hatorah teaching, your response is "Aish Hatorah? Oh, thats... cute".
Finally, you hit the nail on the head!
1. Sometimes in a Torah discussion, you'll say: "The Rambam discusses this in Moreh Nevuchim, but you wouldnt understand it."
A very funny list notwithstanding my corrections. One observation: This list comes from the perspective of the Frum side of things, where not knowing the correct blessing is tantamount to murder, or worse, pig eating. Realize, though, how easy it would be for a bona fide intellectual to poke fun--equally simplistically-- at the Frum intellectual from his own perspective...Amalek genocide? Chosen People? Creation stories? new top ten anyone?
Keep on churning em out Dan and Dave , we'll see you in Barcelona...
Courtesy of Bangitout.com, Top Ten Signs You're a Frum [Religious] Intellectual by David Rosen and Daniel Kasell. Now, Rosen and Kassell are two Cornellians I know fairly well, and Rosen himself admitted that he had me in mind when composing this piece (since this is one of his best, it's quite a compliment), so I figured some commentary was in order. I'm gonna post all 10, add some terminological explanation in brackets, and respond in bold alongside each charge. Afterwards, Ill conclude with some general reflections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Your Divrei Torah [bible lessons, typically delivered during meals] always include one of the following phrases: Imitatio Dei, Ex Nihilo, A Priori (put in italics).
Divrei Torah? C'mon Dave, how many times do I need to tell ya, theyre for the masses to give...
9. You dont see any inherent value in Carlebach minyanim [new age-sing songy-lots of clapping-reckless abandonment of centuries old tunes-words and tune need not match-ohhh it just feels so right.. Prayer service ] and Yisroel Williger concerts, but you still think they are important for "keeping the masses in tow".
Though this was indeed my old approach to Carlebach, I now have a new one. Believe it or not, I was a regular attendee at DC's friday night Carlebach minyan this summer, and it wasn't even the latest minyan offered. I've found that Carlebach tunes make for great background reading noise, and when the clapping starts I always feel like they're cheering for me. And since there's nothing Halakhic about Kabbalat Shabbos anyway...
8. You are only willing to attend a shiur whose title contains the phrase "From the perspective of the Rav".
Sooo year in Israel...These days we skip Soloveitchik and go straight to the sources, Kant and Kierkegaard.
7. You have thoroughly studied the intricacies of the Contradiction of Free Will and an all-knowing God, but you don't know what bracha [blessing] to say on a banana.
Made me chuckle, but...Haadama you bigot.
6. Shul is always a good time to catch up on some reading.
Especially Carlebach Minyanim...c.f. # 9
5. Instead of referring to God as 'God' or 'Hashem', you use fancier words like "The Godhead" or "The Deity".
Damned straight yo
4. Learning mussar [ethical admonishment, usually simplistic and fanatical] is bitul Torah [a waste of valuable Torah study time].
No way...Mussar is a valuable if irrelevant part of the Jewish intellectual tradition... As Saul Lieberman so aptly remarked about Kabbalah: "Mysticism is nonsense, but the study of nonsense is scholarship!" The best Mussar comes from outside the tradition: CS Lewis' Screwtape Letters , for example.
3. When giving a Dvar Torah, you feel the need to either quote the New Testament or Apocrypha.
2. When someone mentions an Aish Hatorah teaching, your response is "Aish Hatorah? Oh, thats... cute".
Finally, you hit the nail on the head!
1. Sometimes in a Torah discussion, you'll say: "The Rambam discusses this in Moreh Nevuchim, but you wouldnt understand it."
A very funny list notwithstanding my corrections. One observation: This list comes from the perspective of the Frum side of things, where not knowing the correct blessing is tantamount to murder, or worse, pig eating. Realize, though, how easy it would be for a bona fide intellectual to poke fun--equally simplistically-- at the Frum intellectual from his own perspective...Amalek genocide? Chosen People? Creation stories? new top ten anyone?
Keep on churning em out Dan and Dave , we'll see you in Barcelona...
Finally, Jewish Sex
We’ve been a bit short on the sexual issues promised in our title. I hope to make at least a minor contribution towards filling that gap…
I recently came across a booklet published in 1996 from the (Jewish) Conservative movement’s Commission on Human Sexuality called, “A Rabbinic Letter on Intimate Relations.” The prologue describes its purpose as:
"…an effort on the part of the Conservative rabbinate to talk openly about matters of human sexuality and intimacy with the members of our movement. Although sex is certainly not the whole of life, it is an important part of it, and so it should be part of the discussion that we Jews have about the norms by which we live."
In sometimes excruciating detail, this pamphlet describes the possible emotional and communal ramifications of the ideal circumstance of sex within marriage. The last three-quarters of the essay is devoted to every possible permutation of that model. What is Conservative Judaism’s view on birth control for an unmarried couple where one partner is HIV positive and the other is emotionally abusive? What about a couple where one person is already a single parent and the other person is a compulsive gambler? What about a couple where both members are female, one is infertile, and the other is allergic to pet dander? Such circumstances, becoming more common in our society, are dealt with (though perhaps in a less exaggerated fashion) in this piece.
I must give the author credit. While a more religious approach would be simply to ignore that problems such as premarital sex and abusive relationships exist, this text tackles them head on (if you like that sort of thing). Then again, perhaps it’s a relatively inconspicuous attempt at drumming up membership among otherwise disenfranchised Jews.
Now, some noteworthy quotes:
“We affirm, as the Rabbis do, that both men and women have indispensable roles in procreation…” OH. I see. This movement is egalitarian. Orthodoxy would probably disagree and say that the man is solely responsible for procreation. In fact, it’s only the modern ones that allow the woman to be the one to carry the baby inside of her. Thanks for the affirmation!
“Why does Judaism posit marriage as the appropriate context for sexual intercourse? It does so because in that setting the couple can attain the three-fold purposes of marital sex –namely, companionship, procreation, and the education of the next generation.” Now I’m slightly confused here. If procreation and education are separate purposes, then what is the education of the next generation that occurs during sexual intercourse? I don’t think I want to know. Perhaps they are encouraging the successful 50-something business man to take and educate a 20-something trophy wife? I had no idea that was a distinctly Jewish value.
“In contemporary society, Jews in large numbers go not only to college, but graduate school, and they often postpone even thinking about finding a marital partner until their schooling has been completed. At that time, though, they may have trouble finding a suitable marriage partner, and the longer they wait, the harder it is to have children. Thus the college years are not necessarily too early for people to take steps to find a suitable marital partner, and Jews should consider it reasonable to marry and to begin to have children in their twenties. Not everyone will meet the right person at that time of life, and one should not think oneself or the college experience a failure if one does not….”
This is a great articulation of thoughts and fears so many people at college probably have (and by people I mean girls). Of course, not meeting the right person in college really is indicative of a future ridden with failure….which is why I should probably spend less time writing for this blog.
We’ve been a bit short on the sexual issues promised in our title. I hope to make at least a minor contribution towards filling that gap…
I recently came across a booklet published in 1996 from the (Jewish) Conservative movement’s Commission on Human Sexuality called, “A Rabbinic Letter on Intimate Relations.” The prologue describes its purpose as:
"…an effort on the part of the Conservative rabbinate to talk openly about matters of human sexuality and intimacy with the members of our movement. Although sex is certainly not the whole of life, it is an important part of it, and so it should be part of the discussion that we Jews have about the norms by which we live."
In sometimes excruciating detail, this pamphlet describes the possible emotional and communal ramifications of the ideal circumstance of sex within marriage. The last three-quarters of the essay is devoted to every possible permutation of that model. What is Conservative Judaism’s view on birth control for an unmarried couple where one partner is HIV positive and the other is emotionally abusive? What about a couple where one person is already a single parent and the other person is a compulsive gambler? What about a couple where both members are female, one is infertile, and the other is allergic to pet dander? Such circumstances, becoming more common in our society, are dealt with (though perhaps in a less exaggerated fashion) in this piece.
I must give the author credit. While a more religious approach would be simply to ignore that problems such as premarital sex and abusive relationships exist, this text tackles them head on (if you like that sort of thing). Then again, perhaps it’s a relatively inconspicuous attempt at drumming up membership among otherwise disenfranchised Jews.
Now, some noteworthy quotes:
“We affirm, as the Rabbis do, that both men and women have indispensable roles in procreation…” OH. I see. This movement is egalitarian. Orthodoxy would probably disagree and say that the man is solely responsible for procreation. In fact, it’s only the modern ones that allow the woman to be the one to carry the baby inside of her. Thanks for the affirmation!
“Why does Judaism posit marriage as the appropriate context for sexual intercourse? It does so because in that setting the couple can attain the three-fold purposes of marital sex –namely, companionship, procreation, and the education of the next generation.” Now I’m slightly confused here. If procreation and education are separate purposes, then what is the education of the next generation that occurs during sexual intercourse? I don’t think I want to know. Perhaps they are encouraging the successful 50-something business man to take and educate a 20-something trophy wife? I had no idea that was a distinctly Jewish value.
“In contemporary society, Jews in large numbers go not only to college, but graduate school, and they often postpone even thinking about finding a marital partner until their schooling has been completed. At that time, though, they may have trouble finding a suitable marriage partner, and the longer they wait, the harder it is to have children. Thus the college years are not necessarily too early for people to take steps to find a suitable marital partner, and Jews should consider it reasonable to marry and to begin to have children in their twenties. Not everyone will meet the right person at that time of life, and one should not think oneself or the college experience a failure if one does not….”
This is a great articulation of thoughts and fears so many people at college probably have (and by people I mean girls). Of course, not meeting the right person in college really is indicative of a future ridden with failure….which is why I should probably spend less time writing for this blog.
What do Jason Biggs and Woody Allen have in common?
American Pie star Jason Biggs has teamed up with Woody Allen (and Christina Ricci) in Anything Else, coming to theaters September 19th.
Plot Outline: "A contemporary romantic comedy set in New York city about the relationship between an older guy and his younger protege. The older guy guides the younger through a messy and hilarious love story."
The movie obviously has Woody Allen written all over it. Besides the setting in NYC, who knows better than Woody Allen how to pick up an adolescent girl? All this is not surprising considering that Woody did write and direct the film. What is surprising is that the movie's trailer contains no mention of Woody, other than his name on the credits. The preview plays itself like just another romantic comedy, albeit one with more neurosis than usual. It's clear that Woody has come to realize that notwithstanding a score of devoted fans (myself included) his name simply doesnt sell anymore. The 1st generation American Jew he so aptly and comically portrayed has been replaced with a more watered down version attracted to Seinfeld, itself a watered down version of classic Woody Allen films like Manhattan and Annie Hall.
Also, what do Jason Biggs and Woody Allen have in common? I think it's clear that the answer is extreme perversion. It's therefore disappointing to learn that film only acheived its R rating for "a scene of drug use and some sexual references."
Some? References? C'mon, Woody, we know you could do better!!
All that said, the movie looks great, and I can't wait to see it in Sept.
American Pie star Jason Biggs has teamed up with Woody Allen (and Christina Ricci) in Anything Else, coming to theaters September 19th.
Plot Outline: "A contemporary romantic comedy set in New York city about the relationship between an older guy and his younger protege. The older guy guides the younger through a messy and hilarious love story."
The movie obviously has Woody Allen written all over it. Besides the setting in NYC, who knows better than Woody Allen how to pick up an adolescent girl? All this is not surprising considering that Woody did write and direct the film. What is surprising is that the movie's trailer contains no mention of Woody, other than his name on the credits. The preview plays itself like just another romantic comedy, albeit one with more neurosis than usual. It's clear that Woody has come to realize that notwithstanding a score of devoted fans (myself included) his name simply doesnt sell anymore. The 1st generation American Jew he so aptly and comically portrayed has been replaced with a more watered down version attracted to Seinfeld, itself a watered down version of classic Woody Allen films like Manhattan and Annie Hall.
Also, what do Jason Biggs and Woody Allen have in common? I think it's clear that the answer is extreme perversion. It's therefore disappointing to learn that film only acheived its R rating for "a scene of drug use and some sexual references."
Some? References? C'mon, Woody, we know you could do better!!
All that said, the movie looks great, and I can't wait to see it in Sept.
The Clinton Strategy
About two weeks ago, Bill Clinton was on Larry King Live fielding questions about the war on Iraq and the intelligence the current administration used to justify it. Surprisingly, Clinton was very supportive of the war and even apologetic about the one sentence of British misinformation used in the State of the Union speech.
Something smells fishy. Bill must be shrewdly campainging for Hillary here. Assuming Hillary doesn't run for president in 2004, the worse scenario for her would be if a Democrat won in 2004, who would then get the nomination again in 2008, delaying Hillary's chance to run until 2012, at which point she'd be a little over the hill. She'll sit this election out most likely and hope for all the current Democrats to be utterly destroyed by Bush in 2004, thus losing credibility as a future candidate (not many losing presidential hopefuls run again). Without Dean and Lieberman and Bush in 2008, she'll have a shot at president. So Bill gets on CNN backing W and putting down the Dems - doesn't it all make sense now?
By the way, with Hillary in the White House, Bill would be First Man. All the perks (wink wink) and no risk of impeachment. Then again, does First Man have the same sex appeal as President, ladies?
About two weeks ago, Bill Clinton was on Larry King Live fielding questions about the war on Iraq and the intelligence the current administration used to justify it. Surprisingly, Clinton was very supportive of the war and even apologetic about the one sentence of British misinformation used in the State of the Union speech.
Something smells fishy. Bill must be shrewdly campainging for Hillary here. Assuming Hillary doesn't run for president in 2004, the worse scenario for her would be if a Democrat won in 2004, who would then get the nomination again in 2008, delaying Hillary's chance to run until 2012, at which point she'd be a little over the hill. She'll sit this election out most likely and hope for all the current Democrats to be utterly destroyed by Bush in 2004, thus losing credibility as a future candidate (not many losing presidential hopefuls run again). Without Dean and Lieberman and Bush in 2008, she'll have a shot at president. So Bill gets on CNN backing W and putting down the Dems - doesn't it all make sense now?
By the way, with Hillary in the White House, Bill would be First Man. All the perks (wink wink) and no risk of impeachment. Then again, does First Man have the same sex appeal as President, ladies?
Sunday, August 10, 2003
More on Schwarzenegger and Waldheim
Timothy Noah "swings for the fences" as one reader outs it, in yesterday's Chatterbox. In the Fray below it has some great responses to his claim that "If Schwarzenegger doesn't renounce Waldheim in a highly public way, he can forget about ever becoming governor of California." He overstates the case obviously, but the moral question lingers: is it enough to support the Wiesenthal Center, or must Schwarzenegger renounce his ties with those among his family and friends with Nazi connections?
Timothy Noah "swings for the fences" as one reader outs it, in yesterday's Chatterbox. In the Fray below it has some great responses to his claim that "If Schwarzenegger doesn't renounce Waldheim in a highly public way, he can forget about ever becoming governor of California." He overstates the case obviously, but the moral question lingers: is it enough to support the Wiesenthal Center, or must Schwarzenegger renounce his ties with those among his family and friends with Nazi connections?
